Control groups without cognate-awareness instruction showed only slight pre-to-post-test differences, unlike the instructed study group¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The control bilingual group's mean moved only from 20.28 to 22.44, a small difference the author reports as statistically meaningful but far below the study group's gain. → Kasap 2018

Evidence¶

Kasap 2018¶

Kasap, S. (2018). The role of cognate English–Kurdish words in teaching English. African Educational Research Journal, 6(4): 213-217. https://doi.org/10.30918/AERJ.64.18.046

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Control bilingual group (N = 32) received the same slides but no cognate instruction. Table 3 prints pre-test M = 20.28, post-test M = 22.44, Sig. .004; the author calls this a "slight difference" and reports a paired-sample correlation analysis found it meaningful.

"As seen in Table 3, there is a slight difference between the pre-test (M = 20.28) and post-test (22.44) and the std. deviation for the tests is about 2 points."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Bilingual learners may fail to notice even obvious cross-language cognates unless explicitly trained in language similarity awareness — a broader claim this one bears on
• Kurdish-Turkish bilingual students given explicit cognate-awareness instruction showed a statistically significant pre-to-post-test vocabulary gain five weeks later — related
• No statistical gender difference appeared in pre-test or comparison scores in either control group — related